Oil Friction Tests

[superior_power]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: superior_power
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: superior_power
Is anyone familiar with this?

http://www.animegame.com/cars/Oil Tests.pdf

Yes. Proven invalid and retracted.


Proven invalid because of method of testing?

Yes. Test is not relevant to what happens inside a combustion engine, for the most part. Shampoo does great on this test, but shampoo does not make a good engine lubricant...




I watched that video earlier today and felt they also manipulated them for their own purpose. Either way, I understand why you say they are not a good example of what happens on the inside of an engine. At least not in some respects. Not trying to argue but in other respects, its pressure with one spinning and the other stationary similar to the rod and most main bearings, right? Or am I missing something? I'm trying to learn the long and short of the testing methods and why one is better than another or why one is inaccurate.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: superior_power
but in other respects, its pressure with one spinning and the other stationary similar to the rod and most main bearings, right?

It's not an extreme pressure like the 'one-arm-bandit' applies though.

There are additional reasons, touched on here:
http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/dro/training-center/articles/dont-fall-shady-oil-testing/

 

[d00df00d]

It's a bad test because:

1. It only shows one attribute of an oil: How it behaves with point loading, without the oil being actively pumped.

2. That single attribute is virtually irrelevant in an engine, where there's almost no point loading and oil is pumped almost everywhere.

3. The test doesn't produce consistent results. So, even if it did demonstrate something useful, it wouldn't do so reliably.


In short, there's no demonstrable correlation between a good result on this test and good performance in an engine.

 

[superior_power]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: superior_power
but in other respects, its pressure with one spinning and the other stationary similar to the rod and most main bearings, right?

It's not an extreme pressure like the 'one-arm-bandit' applies though.

There are additional reasons, touched on here:
http://www.drivenracingoil.com/news/dro/training-center/articles/dont-fall-shady-oil-testing/



Thanks. I'll read up.

 

[superior_power]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
It's a bad test because:

1. It only shows one attribute of an oil: How it behaves with point loading, without the oil being actively pumped.

2. That single attribute is virtually irrelevant in an engine, where there's almost no point loading and oil is pumped almost everywhere.

3. The test doesn't produce consistent results. So, even if it did demonstrate something useful, it wouldn't do so reliably.


In short, there's no demonstrable correlation between a good result on this test and good performance in an engine.


Thanks guys for helping me

or at least what is probably one for you all.

 

[kschachn]

This "test" preys on people's desire to have something visual (and audible) that is quick and simple to get results - a five-second tangible test. But as was stated in the linked article:

Quote:
A PhD chemist that headed Research & Development for ExxonMobil Chemical once said that, “the only test for an engine oil is an engine.” That is a very true yet costly and time consuming reality.

 

[Quattro Pete]

It's OK. You've got to start somewhere.

By the way, some people find that using google search is more effective at locating stuff on BITOG.

Try this:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/search.html

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: superior_power
2)You are correct that the work was already done to an extent. But, I believe I am correct when I say that some of the better manufacturers not only meet but rather exceed the specs. Its not just about feeling better but I BELIEVE its about being better. I am looking for a way to demonstrate ways to teach others the difference in oils.

So, are you asking for a test that the oil companies don't use, yet is somehow better than what they do use, and is somehow a secret from them or that which they wilfully ignore?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Garak
So, are you asking for a test that the oil companies don't use,

Well, it could be a test that they already do use (for example Sequence IVA), but with actual result values reported and not just pass/fail.

But my previous question still stands: does it really matter within the typical expected life of an engine?

 

[Garak]

Or, in the case of some of them that they do use, where the data points, within the error bars, wind up being zero, anyhow.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Garak
Or, in the case of some of them that they do use, where the data points, within the error bars, wind up being zero, anyhow.

Exactly. Was it Castrol that had a marketing campaign some years back touting 4x less wear than Mobil? Well, if Mobil's wear was nearly zero, then 4x less than that would still be nearly zero.

 

[Garak]

Or the claim that no oil does "better" because when wear is statistically at zero, that's that.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
[
Well, it could be a test that they already do use (for example Sequence IVA), but with actual result values reported and not just pass/fail. :


That sequence 4a is a wimpy test. I think something better is needed and Daimler thinks so too. Hi po engines have high pressure valve train. And roller tappets do not fully mitigate the need for ep additives.

 

[Shannow]

Daimler's piston/liner scuffing test ?

 

[Shannow]

If sequence IVA (a cam wear test under the sweet spot for warm-up wear) is "lame", how does a diesel engine piston/liner test (reciprocating by nature) give you any more information about cam wear in "High Performance" engines ?